COMPARATIVE STUDY
JOURNAL ARTICLE
REVIEW

Efficacy and safety of endoscopic gallbladder drainage in acute cholecystitis: Is it better than percutaneous gallbladder drainage?

Muhammad Ali Khan, Omair Atiq, Nisa Kubiliun, Bilal Ali, Faisal Kamal, Richard Nollan, Mohammad Kashif Ismail, Claudio Tombazzi, Michel Kahaleh, Todd H Baron
Gastrointestinal Endoscopy 2017, 85 (1): 76-87.e3
27343412

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: The efficacy and safety of endoscopic gallbladder drainage (EGBD) performed via endoscopic retrograde cholangiography (ERC)-based transpapillary stenting or EUS-based transmural stenting are unknown. We aimed to conduct a proportion meta-analysis to evaluate the cumulative efficacy and safety of these procedures and to compare them with percutaneous gallbladder drainage (PGBD).

METHODS: We searched several databases from inception through December 10, 2015 to identify studies (with 10 or more patients) reporting technical success and postprocedure adverse events of EGBD. Weighted pooled rates (WPRs) for technical and clinical success, postprocedure adverse events, and recurrent cholecystitis were calculated for both methods of EGBD. Pooled odds ratios (ORs) were also calculated to compare the technical success and postprocedure adverse events in patients undergoing EGBD versus PGBD.

RESULTS: The WPRs with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) of technical success, clinical success, postprocedure adverse events, and recurrent cholecystitis for ERC-based transpapillary drainage were 83% (95% CI, 78%-87%; I2  = 38%), 93% (95% CI, 89%-96%; I2  = 39%), 10% (95% CI, 7%-13%; I2  = 27%), and 3% (95% CI, 1%-5%; I2  = 0%), respectively. The WPRs for EUS-based drainage for technical success, clinical success, postprocedure adverse events, and recurrent cholecystitis were 93% (95% CI, 87%-96%; I2  = 0%), 97% (95% CI, 93%-99%; I2  = 0%), 13% (95% CI, 8%-19%; I2  = 0%), and 4% (95% CI, 2%-9%; I2  = 0%), respectively. On proportionate difference, EUS-based drainage had better technical (10%) and clinical success (4%) in comparison with ERC-based drainage. The pooled OR for technical success of EGBD versus PGBD was .51 (95% CI, .09-2.88; I2  = 23%) and for postprocedure adverse events was .33 (95% CI, .14-.80; I2  = 16%) in favor of EGBD.

CONCLUSIONS: EGBD is an efficacious and safe therapeutic modality for treatment of patients with acute cholecystitis who cannot undergo surgery. EGBD shows a similar technical success as PGBD but appears to be safer than PGBD.

Full Text Links

Find Full Text Links for this Article

Discussion

You are not logged in. Sign Up or Log In to join the discussion.

Trending Papers

Remove bar
Read by QxMD icon Read
27343412
×

Save your favorite articles in one place with a free QxMD account.

×

Search Tips

Use Boolean operators: AND/OR

diabetic AND foot
diabetes OR diabetic

Exclude a word using the 'minus' sign

Virchow -triad

Use Parentheses

water AND (cup OR glass)

Add an asterisk (*) at end of a word to include word stems

Neuro* will search for Neurology, Neuroscientist, Neurological, and so on

Use quotes to search for an exact phrase

"primary prevention of cancer"
(heart or cardiac or cardio*) AND arrest -"American Heart Association"

We want to hear from doctors like you!

Take a second to answer a survey question.